Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. Shakespeare, King Lear
This week, in the “Apocalypse” colloquium that I am team-teaching with a colleague from the English department this semester, our text is Shakespeare’s King Lear. When we were planning the course over the past many months, it seemed clear to both my colleague and me that this particular play belonged on the syllabus–but why? We’ve read fiction and essays, viewed movies and documentaries, that explored apocalyptic scenarios ranging from nuclear holocaust to flesh-eating zombies. Why Shakespeare? Why this play?
We’ve asked the students to think of the play as a study of “moral apocalypse”–the erosion and destruction of reliable moral frameworks. In a world where moral standards and principles no longer are operative, what is revealed about human nature? Even as I write these words, it occurs to me that we may currently be living in just such a situation.
I believe that the idea of using King Lear in our colloquium occurred to my colleague and me first because of a workshop we both participated in two or three years ago, an end-of-the-year event held annually for the honors faculty. I always consider not attending (who wants to go back to school the week after commencement?). But the two morning seminars were on King Lear and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship, two worthy texts that should be on everyone’s top whatever list. That, along with a reasonable stipend, was enough for me to sign up.
The King Lear seminar, led by another colleague from the English department, was a welcome return to a text that I find both strikingly dark and strangely compelling every time I read it. I love Shakespeare and find his plays more insightful about human nature and the human condition than any other author (certainly more insightful than any philosopher I have read), but had not read this particular tragedy for a couple of years. As it always does, the play blew me away, disturbed me, and left me wondering whether my colleagues might find some glimmers of hope and redemption that have always escaped me.
King Lear pushes to the limit a hypothesis that has a long and complicated pedigree: We live in a universe that is malign, at the very least indifferent, and human life within this universe is brutal, wretched, and meaningless. Furthermore, Shakespeare sets the play in an early England that as yet has not been “Christianized”—typical and familiar moralizing and redemptive language is as out of place here as it would have been in Ancient Greece or Rome.
As various nasty and morally awful characters—including Lear’s two older daughters—apparently prosper from their rejection of their father, those characters with even a shred of dignity, honor, or love—including Lear’s youngest daughter—are rejected and ultimately destroyed. By the end of the play, the stage is strewn with the bodies of both the good and the bad, while a handful of dazed survivors are left to pick up the pieces. Naked in a driving storm in the middle of a Scottish heath, Lear rages that human beings are nothing but “poor, bare forked animals,” living on a “great stage of fools.” Lear demands an answer to the question “Is man no more than this?” The blinded Gloucester despairingly directs his accusations heavenward:
As flies to wanton boys are we to th’gods;
They kill us for their sport.
The weight of this sad time we must obey,
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
Fade to black. The seminar leader asked us for our feelings, our impressions of what we had just viewed, and for the first time in thirty years in academia I heard something I’ve never before heard when in the presence of twenty scholars: total silence. In obedience to Edward’s directive, no one felt obligated to say anything that “should” be said; at least for a minute or two, we were not professors ready to discuss the next topic to death, but human beings stunned into silence by Shakespeare’s brilliant and disabling portrayal of a meaningless and hopeless world.
I was reminded of one of the final classes in my “Grace, Truth, and Freedom in the Nazi Era” colloquium that had concluded just a couple of weeks before this workshop. My colleague Ray was up front and ended the two-hour session with footage from the liberation of Auschwitz. The students were exposed to a variety of tough material, both in writing and on the screen, throughout the semester, but this particular footage was especially difficult to watch.
There was no narration, no voice over, just hundreds of emaciated dead bodies stacked like so much wood, rooms filled to the ceiling with eyeglasses, hair, or shoes. Bulldozers pushing piles of bodies into a pit for burial just as they would push garbage into a pit at a landfill. Most horrific of all were the close-ups on the faces of the just-liberated prisoners who were still barely alive. The haunting and empty gazes still float through my memory and probably will never leave.
At the end of the several minute montage there was dead silence in the room. Ray wisely made no comment and simply turned off the computer and AV system, then began gathering his books and notes. This was the cue for the rest of us to do the same, and we left the room in silence.
This would have probably been the appropriate conclusion to the King Lear seminar as well. But after what seemed like a very long silence, someone made a comment, then someone else followed up, and pretty soon we were doing what academics do in every context and setting—talking. Several people referenced the silence that preceded the talking and began to analyze what it was about both the play and the film adaptation that caused us not to say anything.
But with Edgar’s final lines in mind, our first reaction was most in keeping with “Speak what we feel”—except that our feelings were, at least for a few moments, deeper than words could express. Once we started putting what we felt into words, it was very easy to shift into “what we ought to say,” and the powerful moment was lost.
Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. And, as Irving Greenberg writes in Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire, if we feel that something must be said, we need to be very careful about what it is.
The Holocaust challenges the claims of all the standards that compete for modern man’s loyalties. Nor does it give simple, clear answers or definitive solutions. To claim that it does is not to take the burning children seriously . . . Let us offer, then, as a working principle the following: No statement, theological, or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of the burning children.